Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Test your rules knowledge (UPA 11th ed)

148 views
Skip to first unread message

ivar @ ultipedia

unread,
Nov 15, 2007, 8:21:30 AM11/15/07
to
Ultipedia.org has a pretty decent rules (UPA 11th ed) quiz online. To
test your general UPA rules mojo hit : http://www.ultipedia.org/wiki/UPA_Rules_Quiz
The quiz is currently 16 questions, should take ~5-10 minutes and is
designed to cover the most common misconceptions / bad calls.

Jackson

unread,
Nov 15, 2007, 9:57:23 AM11/15/07
to
Nice job. I think this will prove a good way to help people learn the
rules, much better than dryly reading the rule book.

I have a few comments. Question 6 states:
An offensive player cuts down the field and makes a diving bid for the
disc. She catches the disc and her feet land in the endzone before she
slides two meters out of bounds. Near the end of her slide her
opponent's bag (off the field) knocks the disc out of her hands before
she gets up.

The correct answer (as the quiz states) is that the pass is
incomplete, however I think the correct answer should be a goal. The
quoted rules by the quiz are appropriate, but their interpretation is
not. The bag knocking the disc out of the player's hands occurred well
after the catch had been made (2 meters!). She retained possession
through all RELEVANT ground contact (the collision with the bag is no
longer relevant, since a goal has already been scored and the point is
over).

Question 10 states:
It is valid for an offensive player to call a 'Fast Count' violation
if their marker did not initiate the stall count with the word
'Stalling'

"offensive player" should be changed to thrower (for clarity) since
only a thrower can call a fast count.

Again, nice job with the quiz,
-Jackson

Alex Peters

unread,
Nov 15, 2007, 10:32:36 AM11/15/07
to
On Nov 15, 9:57 am, Jackson <arieljack...@gmail.com> wrote:

> The correct answer (as the quiz states) is that the pass is
> incomplete, however I think the correct answer should be a goal. The
> quoted rules by the quiz are appropriate, but their interpretation is
> not. The bag knocking the disc out of the player's hands occurred well
> after the catch had been made (2 meters!). She retained possession
> through all RELEVANT ground contact (the collision with the bag is no
> longer relevant, since a goal has already been scored and the point is
> over).

The rules do not use the term "relevant" (which is arguable anyway)
they use "related." It's hard to argue that contact with the bag
isn't related to the catch, it is directly related, and a goal is only
scored when a reciever "retains possession of the disc throughout
*ALL* ground contact related to the catch." The bag is considered
part of the ground.

It's not really any different than making an acrobatic catch, which
causes you to wildly stumble for several steps, trip, fall, and then
drop the disc when you hit the ground 5 seconds later, which would
also be a turnover. The fact that it's 5 seconds later doesn't really
mean anything, because all the contact was related to the catch.

If you wanted to change the rule for the future, you should probably
focus on the definition of bags and objects being part of the ground,
not the contact being related to the catch.

Andrew Hollingworth

unread,
Nov 15, 2007, 11:09:52 AM11/15/07
to
Question 1 says that a player may contest a pick call; what's the
result of the contest?
Andrew

Jackson

unread,
Nov 15, 2007, 11:21:44 AM11/15/07
to

Say I catch a disc in the endzone running horizontally towards the
sideline. About 5 steps later I slam into a tree and drop the disc.
The tree is considered part of the ground, so I dropped the disc due
to ground contact. Is this a goal? I say pretty obviously yes. If you
agree, then please explain how this example is different from the bag
collision example. Do you have to come to a complete stop for the
ground contact to no longer be related? If you think this isn't a
goal, then I guess we have fundamentally different interpretations of
this rule.

Also I used the word relevant because I didn't feel like typing out
"ground contact related to the catch" when I could just say relevant
ground contact, and they mean the same thing.

Jackson

unread,
Nov 15, 2007, 11:27:28 AM11/15/07
to
On Nov 15, 11:09 am, Andrew Hollingworth

<andrew.hollingwo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Question 1 says that a player may contest a pick call; what's the
> result of the contest?
> Andrew

That the other team is now aware that you disagree with their call...
oh you meant how does this change the outcome compared to not-
contesting the pick... the outcome doesn't change.

Unless you can get the defense to take back the call, then the
defender doesn't get to catch up to his receiver. But don't worry, he
still gets to catch his breath, look around and see where the disc is
and where the other players are on the field, and call out a change in
defense while his teammates have plenty of the time to think about the
transition. And the offense isn't allowed to get back up to speed
before the disc is tapped in.

Alex Peters

unread,
Nov 15, 2007, 11:28:33 AM11/15/07
to
As far as positioning goes, the rules do not specify. The stall count
would go back to six (if over 5), except this already happens because
it is a specific rule (would be XIV.A.5.a.3. but is instead b.1.) so
really, nothing.

In one sense contesting a pick is essentially a formal request that
they retract their call.

It should be noted, though, that you can also use the rule (XVI.B) to
contest something like a travel. Travels are not given specific
exemption for the stall count, so if the stall is 8, and they don't
contest the travel, the stall will resume at 9. If they contest it
resumes at 6. It would seem that a lot of players simply assume that
all travels are contested, and always start back at 6.

On Nov 15, 11:09 am, Andrew Hollingworth
<andrew.hollingwo...@gmail.com> wrote:

bryan....@gmail.com

unread,
Nov 15, 2007, 11:34:58 AM11/15/07
to
Question regarding an interpretation

#11

Offensive player receives the disc while running at high speed, does
not change direction but fakes a throw then delivers a quick pass
before his third step after catching. Can travel legitimately be
called ?
yes
no
→ see section II.M and XV.C - Normally a fake requires a player with
the disc to commit to a pivot, but XV.C explicitly makes an exception
If a player catches the disc while running or jumping the player may
release a pass without attempting to stop and without setting a pivot,
provided that..

---------------
---------------

Is it not fair to say that when the throwing motion is made that a
pivot foot has been established and therefore, any further movement is
a traveling violation? I don't foresee ever having to deal with this
situation, as a fake while moving is unlikely to occur; however, I
would like a little discussion / clarification on your thoughts here.

Alex Peters

unread,
Nov 15, 2007, 11:53:14 AM11/15/07
to
On Nov 15, 11:21 am, Jackson <arieljack...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Say I catch a disc in the endzone running horizontally towards the
> sideline. About 5 steps later I slam into a tree and drop the disc.
> The tree is considered part of the ground, so I dropped the disc due
> to ground contact. Is this a goal?

No. You slam into a tree and drop the disc. The tree is part of the
ground. You dropped the disc due to ground contact. These are your
statements. They match exactly with the actual rule that says is a
turnover. "Interpreting" this to be a goal is erroneous. An observer
would rule this a turnover. While it might seem to you that this
"should" be a goal because running into a giant fucking tree really
has nothing to do with Ultimate, the rules do not deal in "degrees" of
right and wrong in such a manner. What if instead of a tree, it's a
branch? What if instead of 5 steps later, it's 3 steps later? What
if it's a twig? What if it's a twig on the field, and you only take 1
step before you fall and drop the disc. What if it's a wet leaf, or a
patch of mud? The answer to all these questions is it doesn't
matter. It is a turnover in all cases, and the degree of
"ridiculousness" of the obstruction and how far away it is from the
field is irrelevant.

Tree

unread,
Nov 15, 2007, 12:05:16 PM11/15/07
to
>. While it might seem to you that this
> "should" be a goal because running into a giant fucking tree really
> has nothing to do with Ultimate.

Not true!!

Jen

unread,
Nov 15, 2007, 12:05:45 PM11/15/07
to

Where in the rules is the outcome of a contested violation discussed?
A pick and a travel are both violations...shouldn't the outcome of
contesting both be the same?
Also, if all calls are contestable, then shouldn't you be able to
contest fast count and double team? how would you do that?

Alex Peters

unread,
Nov 15, 2007, 12:13:32 PM11/15/07
to
On Nov 15, 12:05 pm, Jen <jennifer.lea.wea...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Where in the rules is the outcome of a contested violation discussed?
> A pick and a travel are both violations...shouldn't the outcome of
> contesting both be the same?
> Also, if all calls are contestable, then shouldn't you be able to
> contest fast count and double team? how would you do that?


The outcome of contesting a pick and a travel are the same, I was
merely specifying that you don't *need* to contest a pick for the
stall to reset back to 6, because it was already defined as such by a
specific rule, which has nothing to do with whether or not it was
contested. You technically have to contest a travel for the stall to
reset.

You can contest marking violations. You would simply yell "violation"
which would stop play, then you explain that you are contesting.

Jon "rB" Bauman

unread,
Nov 15, 2007, 12:24:21 PM11/15/07
to

This has been pretty thoroughly discussed on the 11th edition group:

http://groups.google.com/group/UPA_11th_edition_rules/browse_frm/thread/69a716cf4cd96cec

d.wi...@gmail.com

unread,
Nov 15, 2007, 12:41:15 PM11/15/07
to
This can lead to a bit of ridiculousnes though. An opponent who is not
one of the seven on the field also counts as ground in this situation.
If they knock the disc out of your hands or check you or anything as
you make the diving catch and go out-of-bounds, do you want this to be
a turnover, cause according to the rules, it is.

ivar @ ultipedia

unread,
Nov 15, 2007, 12:57:09 PM11/15/07
to
On Nov 15, 8:27 am, Jackson <arieljack...@gmail.com> wrote:
> <andrew.hollingwo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Question 1 says that a player may contest a pick call; what's the
> > result of the contest?
> That the other team is now aware that you disagree with their call...
> oh you meant how does this change the outcome compared to not-
> contesting the pick... the outcome doesn't change.

Observers can assign TMFs or cards to teams/players that persistently
make bogus calls. If your calls are consistently contested an observer
might take corrective measures. My take is that a contested pick
essentially puts the bad call "on the books". This is of course
assuming you're playing with observers.

bryan....@gmail.com

unread,
Nov 15, 2007, 1:15:24 PM11/15/07
to
Great, thanks for the link - seems to be a common question, especially
when dealing with a give and go offense.

BP

Duchamanos

unread,
Nov 15, 2007, 1:22:35 PM11/15/07
to
Running into a tree would never happen in dischoops because of the
strict cap on steps after a catch and rules against going out of
bounds.

Play Dischoops, it's like fun, but slower!

Karl Doege always uproots trees near the Ultimate field, but plants
two afterward.

Handy

unread,
Nov 15, 2007, 1:38:46 PM11/15/07
to
> Observers can assign TMFs or cards to teams/players that persistently
> make bogus calls. If your calls are consistently contested an observer
> might take corrective measures. My take is that a contested pick
> essentially puts the bad call "on the books". This is of course
> assuming you're playing with observers.

Considering a dude spiked it on another player in semis and nationals
and didn't get a "TMF" or a "card," the chances of someone who is
making a few bogus pick calls getting one is about as good as Frank
actually playing ultimate, no?

richarda...@gmail.com

unread,
Nov 15, 2007, 3:34:22 PM11/15/07
to

If he catches the disc in the endzone and takes five steps, he scores
a goal, no matter what he runs into several steps later. Most people
spike well before taking five steps (or even one), and you would never
call that a turnover. The example is different in that it was a drop
while coming down with it, not after scoring. That being said, I've
seen people drop after hitting the ground and call it a goal, claiming
that they "stopped rotation".

Also, I was torn on 14 because, where I know that it's not technically
a fast count, if I jog back to the line and the defender is on 6, I'll
call fast count, because I'm not that slow a jogger.

Alex Peters

unread,
Nov 15, 2007, 4:00:29 PM11/15/07
to
On Nov 15, 3:34 pm, "richardaustinw...@gmail.com"

<richardaustinw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If he catches the disc in the endzone and takes five steps, he scores
> a goal, no matter what he runs into several steps later. Most people
> spike well before taking five steps (or even one), and you would never
> call that a turnover. The example is different in that it was a drop
> while coming down with it, not after scoring.

Purposefully throwing the disc down (aka spiking) is not "Loss of
possession due to ground contact related to a catch." It's "losing
possession because you decided to stop holding on to the disc."
Completely irrelevant.

"The example is different in that it was a drop while coming down with
it, not after scoring."

The important part of this statement is you have defined the drop as
happening "after scoring" as in, he has caught the disc in the
endzone, goal, then later, he has dropped it. So a goal is possession
of the disc in the endzone. But here's the key, II.O.2. "Loss of
possession due to ground contact related to a catch *negates that
player's possession* up to that point." So if you dropped the disc
due to ground contact, technically, you *never had possession*.
Therefore, you haven't dropped it "after scoring" you never scored,
because you never had possesion!

So what you have to determine is if the drop was A) due to ground
contact (which it obviously is, a tree is the ground, contact with it
caused the drop) and B) if the contact was related to the catch. This
is where it gets less clear, and opinion comes into play.

As for his specific situation, it really depends on what occurs in
those five steps. The actual number of steps is unimportant, though
yes, 5 steps is probably stretching it. If he catches the disc at a
slow jog, takes 5 steps, casually bumps into a tree and lets go of the
disc, then yes, that's a goal. That contact isn't really related to
the catch, he could have easily stopped or changed direction, he
wasn't off balance or falling. II.F. defines ground contact as "All
player contact with the ground directly related to a specific event or
maneuver (e.g., jumping, diving, leaning or falling), including
landing or recovering after being off-balance." If you are running at
full speed (the only way you could have possibly made the catch) and
are forced to take 5 steps into a tree, then I would say it falls
under "landing and then recovering after being off-balance". You were
recovering from your run, could not avoid the tree, and dropped the
disc. Loss of possession due to ground contact related to the catch,
turnover. If he is going to exaggerate a "running into a tree"
scenario, then I can exaggerate an "off balance collision" scenario.

But sure, this is highly situational, and you could easily concoct
additional scenarios where it's not a turnover. The original question
posed in the quiz is much more clear cut. The ground contact is
clearly related to the catch (jumping, diving and falling, including
landing) and is a turnover, despite the fact that it is a good
distance away from the field.

Alan J.

unread,
Nov 15, 2007, 4:12:39 PM11/15/07
to
There's another quiz on there dealing with thrower/marker fouls. One
of the questions deals with the follow through of the thrower. If
your follow through drives your hand into your marker's cheek, it is
no foul either way. I've been having some trouble with this as of
late (I think I bitch-slapped 4 different markers in the last 2
tourneys...) and the marker keeps calling a foul on me... First, I
don't think it is a foul because it is purely incidental, but if I
cannot convince them of this, what actually happens? I mean, I could
contest and they could call me a cheating ass (which I wouldn't be), I
could say "no-contest," but since it happened after the throw anyway,
wouldn't the throw still stand?

Slightly confused, still happy that something finally puts this right
concerning the actual call (no foul).

Anyone else have this problem?

Pflaumer

unread,
Nov 15, 2007, 4:25:21 PM11/15/07
to
On Nov 15, 3:34 pm, "richardaustinw...@gmail.com"
> call fast count, because I'm not that slow a jogger.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Where is this "five-step" rule? i don't see it.

Also, how is the running into a tree or running into a player a part
of it? if you are running, you are upright meaning you would have
stopped rotation thus gained posession, goal, and any result after
would not matter. unless, you were falling into a tree/player as you
were dragging your feet to stay in bounds and lose posession i can see
it, but not running, catching a disc, and then hitting a tree. and if
the former were true then your crazy for playing on a field that was
that close to a tree.

if im wrong about the rule, then a similar situation would be running,
catching a disc, then tripping/falling/running into another player,
and then losing posession as a result of the ground would be a turn.
is that right? and how long must posession be sustained before any
resulting situation causes a turn.

Alex Peters

unread,
Nov 15, 2007, 4:39:30 PM11/15/07
to
On Nov 15, 4:25 pm, Pflaumer <uncwultim...@gmail.com> wrote:

> and how long must posession be sustained before any
> resulting situation causes a turn.

That's the question, and the answer is "until loss of possession can
no longer be determined to be related to the catch" which is obviously
an elastic amount of time.

So you agree that running, catching, then immediately tripping and
dropping is obviously a turn.

So what if you run, catch, take one step, then trip and drop. You
took a step after the catch, does this immediately absolve you of
dropping afterwards? I would think most people would agree not.

So what if you run, catch, take two steps, then trip and drop. Still
a turn right?
So what if you run, catch, take two steps, trip over a branch and
drop. Still a turn right? You see where this is going. Steps after
the fact are not alone enough to indicate a goal.

You have to determine whether the trip was as a direct result of the
catch. If making the catch involves running at full speed, and you
can't slow up in time to not trip or run into something, then I say
that trip/collision is related to the catch. If you made the catch in
a different manner, then you wouldn't have tripped or ran into a tree.

Adam Tarr

unread,
Nov 15, 2007, 8:49:40 PM11/15/07
to
Alex, you've done a nice job addressing questions about this rule.

I imagine the spirit behind this rule is that the standard for
catching a goal should be no less stringent than catching a disc
somewhere else on the field. It shouldn't be EASIER to catch a goal
because you can get away with losing the disc while falling. With
that in mind, I would argue that your actions are no longer "related
to the catch" when you have gained control to the degree that you
could stop, set a pivot foot, and make another throw. Not that you
would, but you could.

Jared Smith

unread,
Nov 16, 2007, 12:06:02 PM11/16/07
to

Agreed. I would imagine no reasonable person would ever intentionally
slam into a tree and drop a disc after catching it. With that in mind
you have to then assume the tree contact was related to the catch
because if it wasn't, why didn't they avoid it? I like the test of
being able to stop and set a pivot foot though, makes things a lot
less fuzzy.

colinm...@gmail.com

unread,
Nov 29, 2007, 2:03:28 PM11/29/07
to
On Nov 15, 11:12 pm, "Alan J." <Alan_Jan...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> There's anotherquizon there dealing with thrower/marker fouls. One

The contact isn't in and of itself a foul, unless there's more to it.
If you've used "purely incidental" in the way the rules define
"incidental" then it cannot be a foul. However, if the marker argues
that your whacking him in the face disoriented him and therefore
affected his ability to immediately participate in "continued play,"
then he could call a foul on you.

In your given situation, it is important that you establish whether
you agree on the timing (before or after release). If you agree it
was after, then the result of the pass will generally stand (specific
play was not affected), as you said.

However, also be aware that depending on the severity of the contact,
the marker might also be justified in calling "dangerous play," in
which case the timing is irrelevant.

Alan J.

unread,
Nov 29, 2007, 2:38:44 PM11/29/07
to
Makes sense... I think it's only happened when the marker ends up
slightly draped over my body though. It obviously doesn't happen a
lot, but I couldn't see how someone would define my follow-through or
using my left hand to stabilize my body on a flick as being
"dangerous."

Even if the contact managed to affect his ability to continue play,
wouldn't the pass still stand, but be played more similar to a pick?
I throw the disc, accidentaly hit the marker, then take off running,
the marker calls foul (after the throw), so I let him catch up to me
and the play stands... Would that make sense?

colinm...@gmail.com

unread,
Nov 29, 2007, 3:16:58 PM11/29/07
to
On Nov 15, 6:53 pm, Alex Peters <muis...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 15, 11:21 am, Jackson <arieljack...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Say I catch a disc in the endzone running horizontally towards the
> > sideline. About 5 steps later I slam into a tree and drop the disc.
> > The tree is considered part of the ground, so I dropped the disc due
> > to ground contact. Is this a goal?
>
> No. You slam into a tree and drop the disc. The tree is part of the
> ground. You dropped the disc due to ground contact. These are your
> statements. They match exactly with the actual rule that says is a
> turnover. . . It is a turnover in all cases, and the degree of

> "ridiculousness" of the obstruction and how far away it is from the
> field is irrelevant.

Alex,

You're ignoring the "directly related to a specific event or maneuver"
language. Slowing down or continuing to run do not inherently involve
"being off-balance" and completely stopping one's momentum is not
indicated in the rule. If the ridiculousness of the obstruction and
its distance from the field are irrelevant, then would you say the
player who makes a running catch in Baltimore and continues running
and drops it when he collides with the Washington Monument has lost
possession of the disc due to ground contact directly related to the
running catch? "Directly related," not "related even slightly."

-Colin

Alex Peters

unread,
Nov 29, 2007, 3:28:25 PM11/29/07
to
On Nov 29, 3:16 pm, colinmcint...@gmail.com wrote:
If the ridiculousness of the obstruction and
> its distance from the field are irrelevant, then would you say the
> player who makes a running catch in Baltimore and continues running
> and drops it when he collides with the Washington Monument has lost
> possession of the disc due to ground contact directly related to the
> running catch? "Directly related," not "related even slightly."
>
> -Colin

"Continuing to run" and "unable to stop" are completely different
things.

colinm...@gmail.com

unread,
Nov 29, 2007, 3:36:15 PM11/29/07
to

Why do you have to assume that the tree contact was "directly related"
to the catch? Maybe the player's failure to avoid the tree was
related to running really, really fast. The "directly" is very
important language. It's clearly limiting and there are a limited
number of examples provided to help clarify. "Slowing down" is not
one of those examples, nor is "running" one of the examples provided
to help clarify "specific event or maneuver". Not to say the lists
are necessarily exclusive, but surely "running" and "slowing down" are
common enough things to have warranted inclusion, if there were meant
to be included.

Being able to stop and set a pivot certainly indicates that subsequent
actions are not related to the catch. But that is not the bar. Being
able to stop and have a picnic also indicates that subsequent actions
are not related to the catch. But again, "related" is not the
requirement. "Directly related" is the requirement.

Alex Peters

unread,
Nov 29, 2007, 3:41:52 PM11/29/07
to
On Nov 29, 3:36 pm, colinmcint...@gmail.com wrote:
> But again, "related" is not the
> requirement. "Directly related" is the requirement.

Yes, and are you going to give your definition of "directly related"
now? Does it involve a certain number of steps? A certain distance?
Are you going to define degrees of ridiculousness of objects that
count or don't count?

It has already been stated that it matters exactly how the catch is
made, how fast, what the angle is, how he comes down. A saunter into
a tree after a catch, goal. A full speed sprint, lunge and trip into
a tree? Probably not a goal.

colinm...@gmail.com

unread,
Nov 29, 2007, 4:07:06 PM11/29/07
to

Yes. And neither is indicated in the rule as constituting ground
contact. "recovering from being off-balance" is the closest. What's
your support for writing either one of those conditions into the rules?

Baer

unread,
Nov 29, 2007, 4:12:56 PM11/29/07
to
I'm glad this thread resurfaced, because I didn't have a chance to
weigh in earlier on the topic of dropping the disc after sliding into
a bag or running into a tree (after clearly catching it in the
endzone).

Does anyone else think this is ridiculous? I would think that if you
catch and have possession of the disc in the endzone, it should be a
goal. Period. After reading this thread, I think that some people are
overanylyzing the rule, or, if the actual intent of the rule is to
disallow the goal after sliding into the bag, the SRC should rethink
that stance and fix it or at least clarify it.

Alex, your answers on this thread seem to show some authority on the
subject, but it still seems kind of convoluted. If you are accurately
representing the spirit of rule XI.A., then I just think it's a bad
rule.

To compare to football, we've all seen many times when a receiver
catches and has possession of the ball, gets two feet down, but his
legs are still spinning like the roadrunner and his momentum takes him
out of bounds or trips over an opponent. Even if he drops the ball at
that point, it's still obviously a touchdown. When the ball was
cleanly caught and two feet were down, there's your score, and it's
done. Nothing afterward matters because the play is over and the ball
is dead. It should be the same way in Ultimate, IMO.

To add to the tree example, a player could clearly catch the disc
while still at full speed, clearly in the end zone, but then running
out of bounds before his legs slow down. He could easily drop or even
spike the disc, even if he doesn't yet have his legs under control,
before hitting the tree. I think this is obviously a goal, yet
according to this rule, someone who chooses not to spike the disc and
then runs into the tree and drops it has committed a turnover. That
seems dumb.

I have caught discs for scores and have had the wherewithall to tap
the disc to the ground even before my legs are under control before
falling off balance. At the point I caught it, that's a goal, and the
play should be dead. Even after I indicate the goal with the ground
tap, if I were to continue falling and then drop the disc, you would
call a turnover? Asinine. Even more asinine is the fact, according to
the quiz, someone's arbitrarily placed bag OUTSIDE of the endzone can
cause a turnover, even if the receiver has cleanly caught the disc
INSIDE the endzone.


Baer

unread,
Nov 29, 2007, 4:13:28 PM11/29/07
to
I'm not a fan of the continuation rule, either, but that's a different
story...

colinm...@gmail.com

unread,
Nov 29, 2007, 4:14:27 PM11/29/07
to

Yep, play would stand, as you described. Your follow-through may not
be dangerous, but some definitely can be, especially on hucks. So
it's possible they'd fall under the recklessness or other requirements
of the dangerous play rule (XVI.H.4). But short of that, no contact
after the release could generally result in the disc coming back,
provided both parties agree the contact was after the release.

Baer

unread,
Nov 29, 2007, 4:39:52 PM11/29/07
to
On Nov 29, 2:36 pm, colinmcint...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Why do you have to assume that the tree contact was "directly related"
> to the catch? Maybe the player's failure to avoid the tree was
> related to running really, really fast. The "directly" is very
> important language.

I agree with this, Colin.

To me, "directly related to the catch" has everything to do with
having control of the non-spinning disc, i.e. it is in your hands. If
you have a foot down in the endzone, combined with the caught disc,
that is the score. Your feet do not have anything to do with
possession of the disc as long as you are in bounds.

The fact that you are running really fast and can't slow down before
hitting the tree does not seem directly related to the catch, but
rather to your uncontrollable fleetness of foot.

swill...@yahoo.com

unread,
Nov 29, 2007, 4:48:55 PM11/29/07
to

A difference in rules interpretation??? Well I'll be a monkey's
uncle...It's pretty clear that someone is correctly reading the spirit
of the rules, and that the other person is mis-reading the rules
entirely. Clearly a green/red bird issue...

The real question, what type of tree is it? Did the reciever have
previous knowledge of the tree existing? Did the tree force the disc
to drop after the reciever stopped rotation? What's the tree's
opinion?

In the end, the advice is clear. Run slower, watch out for trees, and
when in doubt, tell people the way the rules 'should be read'.

swill...@yahoo.com

unread,
Nov 29, 2007, 4:54:41 PM11/29/07
to

Dangerous play rule?

I thought you're kosher if you're always trying to make a play on the
disc...

You know what's really dangerous? Turd muffins that do exaggerated
high back kicks when running, nailing their defenders in the shin, and
calling a foul on the defender because they were following 'too
closely'. I sucessfully contested this once because the guy had eyes
in the back of the head and he knew how close I was, and should've ran
faster.

Baer

unread,
Nov 29, 2007, 4:59:38 PM11/29/07
to
On Nov 29, 3:48 pm, swillaho...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> In the end, the advice is clear. Run slower, watch out for trees, and
> when in doubt, tell people the way the rules 'should be read'.
>

I don't want to tell anyone how the rules SHOULD be read, because I
may very well be wrong. But in my opinion, if the rules mean to say
that these incidents are turnovers, even after possession has been
made in the endzone, than I think the rules should be changed.

Does anyone else agree?

Just to be safe, you should hold onto the damn disc anyway...


colinm...@gmail.com

unread,
Nov 29, 2007, 5:30:46 PM11/29/07
to
On Nov 29, 10:41 pm, Alex Peters <muis...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 29, 3:36 pm, colinmcint...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > But again, "related" is not the
> > requirement. "Directly related" is the requirement.
>
> Yes, and are you going to give your definition of "directly related"
> now? Does it involve a certain number of steps? A certain distance?
> Are you going to define degrees of ridiculousness of objects that
> count or don't count?

Ok, so we're in agreement that "directly" is in the rule and it
probably means something more than nothing. That's progress. And
sure, I'll give you a definition and I'll go through the structure of
the rule to support my definition. Understand, of course, that I'm
speaking in an entirely unofficial capacity.

F. Ground contact: All player contact with the ground directly related
to a specific event or maneuver (e.g., jumping, diving, leaning or


falling), including landing or recovering after being off-balance.

Items on the ground are considered part of the ground.

I did a quick search on dictionary.com for "directly" and have
included the most applicable portions below:
2. without anyone or anything intervening; "these two factors are
directly related"; "he was directly responsible"; "measured the
physical properties directly"
3. without delay or hesitation; with no time intervening

So then "directly related" means related without anyone, anything or
any time intervening. So if the specific event is a jumping catch,
then the ground contact directly related to the jumping catch is the
ground contact involved in jumping. The ground contact involved in
landing not directly related, provided there is time intervening
between the catch and the landing.

Then we have the "but wait, there's more" provision indicating that
"directly related," in addition to the common understanding also
includes "landing or recovering after being off-balance." This
inclusion suggests that common understanding of "directly" might be so
limited as to exclude "landing" from being directly related to the
specific maneuver of jumping, as I mentioned above. Surely this
common understanding would exclude "continuing to run" or "not ceasing
to run" from a specific maneuver like a running catch. The additional
language creates two exceptions. Notice that the rule doesn't contain
"including but not limited to" language.

Perhaps the less-clear terms are "specific maneuver" and "off-
balance."

I would say that the condition of being off-balance is not always
readily apparent, but is often indicated by an inability to stay
upright or continue one's motion in a fluid manner (e.g. continuing to
run or walk normally). Subsequent stumbling or flailing of one's arms
may indicate that a player was previously off-balance. However, if a
person establishes first that they are in-balance, then they establish
that they have subsequently become off-balance and fall outside of the
ground contact rule. How do you establish being in-balance?
Continue to run or slow down without stumbling. Continuing to run
while signaling a goal (say by holding one's arms above one's head,
disc in hand) would be an indication of being in-balance to me,
provided it wasn't accompanied by indications of being off-balance.

As for specific maneuvers, note that "running" is not included in the
examples of specific events or maneuvers. The list is not inclusive,
but all the examples have definite duration. That is consistent with
the use of "specific."

colinm...@gmail.com

unread,
Nov 29, 2007, 5:52:56 PM11/29/07
to

My unofficial reading of the rule is that it's intended to make
turnovers situations where players temporarily establish possession of
a disc while off-balance, jumping, diving, etc, and lose possession as
a result of landing, continuing to stumble, etc. I do not think the
whole tree scenario is supported by the best (not easily refuted)
interpretation of the rules, nor do I think a turnover is the intended
result. In short, I call that bad interpretation, not a bad rule.

The effect of this is to create a greater degree of certainty as far
as whether there actually was possession in attempted catches in the
endzone. In self-officiated sport, this is particularly helpful, as
it avoids a whole lot of argument. Just imagine:

"No, dude, I caught it, but then I dropped it because I was
stumbling."
"No, you were still fumbling for control of the disc the whole time,
you never had it."
"Fine, let's go to the instant replay. Oh, no instant replay? Ok,
fine. Redo it.
"What?! Redo? You never even caught it!!!"

As for the example of sliding into the bag, it only really matters in
the endzone. Each team scores in each endzone, so there's an equal
incentive to keep that area clear (unless one team only scores in the
middle or something). However, the question is written in a way that
isn't entirely clear how separated the contact with the bag was from
the contact with the ground. In general, I'd support calling it a
turnover because it sounds like it may have been pretty related (but
you'd really have to be there - was the bag only 2m from the
sideline?) and I would make darn sure there were no obstructions on
the sideline near the endzone.

See below (post 28) for a more detailed analysis of the rule's
structure and language supporting a narrower interpretation.

Alex Peters

unread,
Nov 29, 2007, 6:47:53 PM11/29/07
to
Ok, so I attempted to post this earlier but ended up accidentally
sending it directly to Baer. I'll repost some of it in condensed form
and then address what Colin wrote.

On the ridiculousness of the tree situation:

Well, yes, it is pretty ridiculous. I have already stated that 5
steps into a tree is stretching it pretty far. In a way, coming up
with that situation is kind of
a dirty debate tactic, if I don't support a situation that is on the
edge of credibility, then I end up conceding more than the rules
actually allow and give strength to the opposing position, and if I
support it, then I come off looking like the crazy rules prick bastard
who thinks
5 steps into a tree is an automatic turnover.

>stuff about football and what the rule should be

A score in football is that way because it was defined that way by
their rules committee, not because that is some universal definition
of a goal. I am merely attempting to define what the rule is, I try
not to address what the rules should be in these conversations. You
are welcome to take it up with the rules committee, and regardless of
my stance on certain rules issues I don't necessarily oppose changes.

>Even after I indicate the goal with the ground tap, if I were to continue falling and then drop the disc, you would call a turnover? Asinine.

First of all, there is no rule that says you have to indicate a goal
with a ground tap. I'm not saying you thought it was a rule or not,
but I have seen people say that it is. Second, yes, if you are
falling down and drop the disc when you hit the ground, even if you
managed to "tap in" first, that would be a turnover.

To bring it back to your football scenario, it would be like making a
catch in the endzone, but only getting one foot down. According to
you, you have fulfilled the spirit of the rule by catching the ball in
the endzone, so it should be a touchdown. The letter of the law,
however, says 2 feet, not one. It would be silly to say it was
asinine to call it an incompletion, but that is essentially what you
are claiming.


Adam Tarr

unread,
Nov 29, 2007, 8:06:19 PM11/29/07
to
On Nov 29, 2:12 pm, Baer <collin.b...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> To compare to football, we've all seen many times when a receiver
> catches and has possession of the ball, gets two feet down, but his
> legs are still spinning like the roadrunner and his momentum takes him
> out of bounds or trips over an opponent. Even if he drops the ball at
> that point, it's still obviously a touchdown. When the ball was
> cleanly caught and two feet were down, there's your score, and it's
> done. Nothing afterward matters because the play is over and the ball
> is dead. It should be the same way in Ultimate, IMO.

Two comments here:

1) I don't know whether this was intentional or not, but you put the
football receiver in specific situations where the loss of possession
is irrelevant. If the receiver catches the ball cleanly, lands on the
ground (in bounds), and the ball pops out, that's an incomplete pass.
That's essentially the exact scenario you decry at the end of your
post.

2) There are differences between football and ultimate that motivate
different rules. In football, there's only one catch of a forward
pass during continuous play. In fact (other than in the NFL, where
contact is usually required) a player with possession putting a knee
on the ground kills the play. By contrast, ultimate is played with
multiple forward passes in continued play. Furthermore, an ultimate
player who catches the disc on the field of play (and does not throw
within the first three steps) has an obligation to slow down and
establish a pivot foot. Simply put, we have different expectations of
receivers in ultimate, and this motivates a different approach to end
zone catches.

> To add to the tree example, a player could clearly catch the disc
> while still at full speed, clearly in the end zone, but then running
> out of bounds before his legs slow down. He could easily drop or even
> spike the disc, even if he doesn't yet have his legs under control,
> before hitting the tree. I think this is obviously a goal, yet
> according to this rule, someone who chooses not to spike the disc and
> then runs into the tree and drops it has committed a turnover. That
> seems dumb.

It would not be a turnover. By your description, the guy running into
the tree is no longer moving in a way related to the catch. He just
wants to run into the tree, I suppose.

To take the converse situation - if somebody caught a disc while
stumbling out of bounds, and then "spiked" the disc just before
crashing, out of control, into a tree, that would be in my opinion a
(very unfortunate) turnover. The spike doesn't save you - you lost
posession due to ground contact related to the catch. No different
than a player falling down who gets rid of the disc in the process of
trying to break the fall.

> I have caught discs for scores and have had the wherewithall to tap
> the disc to the ground even before my legs are under control before
> falling off balance. At the point I caught it, that's a goal, and the
> play should be dead. Even after I indicate the goal with the ground
> tap,

As Alex pointed out, tapping the ground has nothing to do with it
being a goal. You don't even need to acknowledge the goal anymore in
11th edition.

> if I were to continue falling and then drop the disc, you would
> call a turnover? Asinine.

That's the exact point of the rule. Just like when you drop a disc
outside the goal. Catching a goal should be no easier than catching a
pass on the playing field proper. Why should the last catch be easier
than the ones before it?

ivar @ ultipedia

unread,
Nov 29, 2007, 8:11:54 PM11/29/07
to
On Nov 15, 8:34 am, bryan.pat...@gmail.com wrote:
> Question regarding an interpretation #11
> Is it not fair to say that when the throwing motion is made that a
> pivot foot has been established and therefore, any further movement is
> a traveling violation? I don't foresee ever having to deal with this
> situation, as a fake while moving is unlikely to occur; however, I
> would like a little discussion / clarification on your thoughts here.

When I created that question I was under the impression that a fake
implied a pivot, but it does not. Check out the related thread at:
http://groups.google.com/group/UPA_11th_edition_rules/browse_frm/thread/69a716cf4cd96cec

Alex Peters

unread,
Nov 29, 2007, 8:15:58 PM11/29/07
to
On Nov 29, 5:30 pm, colinmcint...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Nov 29, 10:41 pm, Alex Peters <muis...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Ok, so we're in agreement that "directly" is in the rule and it
> probably means something more than nothing. That's progress.

I never said it was unimportant, exactly the opposite in fact. If you
read further than the post of mine you quoted (which was intended only
to address that ridiculousness is not a factor if the situation meets
the rules, the if is what we are discussing now) you will see that I
stress several times that the interpretation of "directly related" is
what matters, as ground contact is already well defined and is not
really in dispute.

> The ground contact involved in landing not directly related, provided there is time intervening

> between the catch and the landing ... in addition to the common understanding also


> includes "landing or recovering after being off-balance." This
> inclusion suggests that common understanding of "directly" might be so
> limited as to exclude "landing" from being directly related to the
> specific maneuver of jumping, as I mentioned above.

I did the same thing (looking up definitions), but I completely
disagree that landing isn't commonly understood to be directly related
to a jump catch. Unless you can fly, coming down is commonly
understood to be directly related to jumping. That they further
specified landing can suggest several things, and I suggest it is
merely because it is the most common situation, so they addressed it
directly. One might question why they specified jumping.

I think you are placing too much emphasis on "directly" as a unit of
time (definition 3) and not enough on "related" or the whole phrase
"directly related." It seems to me that "directly" has been placed
there not necessarily to define things as "instantaneously related"
but to differentiate from things that are "indirectly related" as in,
coming after, because of, but not physically caused by. Look at one
of the example phrases in definition 2, "he was directly
responsible." That's probably the closest related example, and it
doesn't really have anything to do with time.

> Off balance stuff

This all seems fairly good. It should be pointed out here that
without a more well defined situation, we are likely arguing with a
much different picture of what "taking steps into a tree" is actually
entailing. I concede that there are a great many ways that you could
imagine it that it would indeed not be a turnover, involving the
speed, awareness, body control, and a host of other factors.

> As for specific maneuvers, note that "running" is not included in the
> examples of specific events or maneuvers. The list is not inclusive,
> but all the examples have definite duration. That is consistent with
> the use of "specific."

I am not attempting to claim that the specific maneuver is "running."
I'm saying that "lunging catch at full speed" is one maneuver, and
that subsequently "running into a tree" may be directly related.

Alex Peters

unread,
Nov 29, 2007, 8:26:29 PM11/29/07
to
I feel I should add, it's easy to go back and forth on the
interpretation of the extremities of a hypothetical situation, but in
practice the situation is quite rare, and when it does happen, I think
it's generally pretty easy for those on the field to come to an
agreement about whether the drop was directly related or not. I've
certainly never had an argument about it, or seen one.

colinm...@gmail.com

unread,
Nov 29, 2007, 11:58:20 PM11/29/07
to
On Nov 29, 8:15 pm, Alex Peters <muis...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 29, 5:30 pm, colinmcint...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > On Nov 29, 10:41 pm, Alex Peters <muis...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Ok, so we're in agreement that "directly" is in the rule and it
> > probably means something more than nothing. That's progress.
>
> I stress several times that the interpretation of "directly related" is
> what matters,

I guess I just saw a few lonely "relateds" and missed any analysis of
"directly." When the scenario started expanding, the directness
question seemed obvious to me (what if she slide 20m? What if he
continued in full balance and unable to stop for 100m?

> > includes "landing or recovering after being off-balance." This
> > inclusion suggests that common understanding of "directly" might be so
> > limited as to exclude "landing" from being directly related to the
> > specific maneuver of jumping, as I mentioned above.
>
> I did the same thing (looking up definitions), but I completely
> disagree that landing isn't commonly understood to be directly related
> to a jump catch. Unless you can fly, coming down is commonly
> understood to be directly related to jumping. That they further
> specified landing can suggest several things, and I suggest it is
> merely because it is the most common situation, so they addressed it
> directly. One might question why they specified jumping.

Sloppy of me to use "common understanding." Neither of us has taken a
poll. I should have said common definition or something. Anyway, the
definition limits it and the most common situation is running and
catching, so I'd still expect that to be addressed directly before
landing would be, but neither running nor continuing to run is
addressed.

> I think you are placing too much emphasis on "directly" as a unit of
> time (definition 3) and not enough on "related" or the whole phrase
> "directly related." It seems to me that "directly" has been placed
> there not necessarily to define things as "instantaneously related"
> but to differentiate from things that are "indirectly related" as in,
> coming after, because of, but not physically caused by. Look at one
> of the example phrases in definition 2, "he was directly
> responsible." That's probably the closest related example, and it
> doesn't really have anything to do with time.

Two factors being directly related seems like a closer related example
than "he was directly responsible" (admittedly another fine one).
Either way, "without anything intervening" also excludes the
possibility of falling within the rule, if one makes a lunging running
catch and then runs and then hits the tree, without some indication of
loss of balance. The running intervenes.

> > As for specific maneuvers, note that "running" is not included in the
> > examples of specific events or maneuvers. The list is not inclusive,
> > but all the examples have definite duration. That is consistent with
> > the use of "specific."
>
> I am not attempting to claim that the specific maneuver is "running."
> I'm saying that "lunging catch at full speed" is one maneuver, and
> that subsequently "running into a tree" may be directly related.

Right, and then we're looking for causation. Without the player being
at least arguably off-balance, I cannot think of an example where the
lunging catch is the cause of the running into the tree. Rather, the
player's momentum is the cause. His running is the cause. And his
running isn't the specific maneuver, so the direct relation can't
exist for the purpose of the rule.

I also agree with your comment below as far as it being a fairly rare
situation. And reasonable minds might find it pretty easy to come to
an agreement on the field. But really competitive, possibly cheating
minds likely can't. And if players are going to cheat in this
scenario, they should do it outright and not make any pretense of
fitting within the rules. From a policy perspective, my
interpretation is advantageous in reducing the argument to a question
of balance, which is more easily resolved then figuring out what two
angry guys on the field think "directly related" means. A player can
know that so long as he demonstrates balance and signals a goal, it
doesn't matter that some bonehead benchwarmer subsequently knocks him
down. As for weighing support for interpretations, I really think the
definitions weigh in on my side.